A former employee in the Butler County District Attorney’s office is suing the county for alleged age discrimination.

Linda Cranmer, who was born in 1959, of Summit Township is accusing the county of forcing her to resign in November 2012 after being blamed for the loss of a federal grant.

In the complaint filed May 15, Cranmer alleges she was pressured to quit as assistant victim witness coordinator in November 2012 upon being unjustly blamed for the loss of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Arrest Grant.

Cranmer could not be reached for comment.

District Attorney Richard Goldinger on Oct. 11, 2012, suspended Cranmer.

He later cited problems with how Cranmer handled the grant application process and withholding information from him.

Goldinger declined to comment.

“I can’t comment on pending litigation,” he said.

County solicitor Mike English also declined to comment, pointing out the county’s insurance carrier, Pennsylvania Counties Risk Pool or PCoRP, is handling the case.

Attorney Marie Milie Jones of the Pittsburgh firm JonesPassodelis, who is representing the county on behalf of PCoRP, could not be reached for comment.

The complaint asserts Cranmer was replaced as the full-time assistant victim witness coordinator by a younger part-time worker.

According to the complaint, “The defendant, acting through its employees and agents, was motivated by plaintiff’s age when it constructively discharged her by forcing her to choose between resignation and termination.”

According to county personnel records, the former part-timer’s job title, victim witness clerk, is different from Cranmer’s former one.

Cranmer is claiming a loss of wages, pension benefits, insurance benefits, future earnings, humiliation and adverse health effects.

The complaint does not ask for a specific amount, but stated it would exceed $35,000.

According to the complaint, Cranmer, who served in the post since 2010, submitted applications for other grants without any problems arising.

In 2012, Cranmer began the grant application process for the two-year Arrest grant, which had a March 12 registration deadline.

The complaint states Cranmer ensured her computer had the necessary software to submit the application online and verified other details with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women, which awards the grants.

According to the complaint, Goldinger decided to request a $400,000 grant instead of $300,000 after March 12.

The application deadline was 11:59 p.m. March 26.

Cranmer alleges the county’s portion of the application was done March 23 while the section to be completed by the Victim Outreach Intervention Center, which shared the money, was not submitted to her until March 26.

After Cranmer disclosed the delay on VOICe’s part at a November 2012 county commissioners meeting, the organization stressed Goldinger’s office received the necessary information on the morning of March 26.

VOICe also stated the district attorney’s office requested help that day with the county’s portion of the application.

The complaint states Cranmer mailed the completed application to the OVW address on file and attempted to submit an application online.

She discovered the password was invalid. According to the complaint, the reason was likely due to the increase in the amount requested.

The complaint then states Cranmer relayed OVW’s information about how to proceed in such a case to Goldinger, but he would not comply until the next day.

She claims the application process was redone with OVW’s cooperation on March 27, with every e-mail exchange copied to Goldinger.

Via a Sept. 28 letter, the OVW informed the county the grant application was denied because it was submitted past the deadline.

Cranmer in December 2012 filed an age discrimination complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

In response, Goldinger said Cranmer did not inform him the application was submitted late.

According to Goldinger, Cranmer mailed the application to the wrong address, but even if it had arrived at the correct destination, a hard copy would not have been accepted.

The EEOC last year dismissed that case, stating there was a lack of evidence. However, the dismissal did not absolve the county of any possible wrongdoing.